DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/429,441, “POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY”, was filed with the USPTO on 2/1/2024 and has a foreign priority document of JP2023-015224 filed on 2/3/2023.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 2/1/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/429,441, filed on 2/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,791,452 (hereinafter 452’) in view of Lee et al. (US 20160043430 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 452’ teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode, claim 1 of 452’) for a secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (current collector, claim 1 of 452’); and
a positive electrode active material layer (positive electrode active material layer, claim 1 of 452’),
the positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material layer containing a positive electrode active material, see claim 1 of 452’), and
the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, claim 1 of 452’) being with a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte, claim 1 of 452’).
452’ does not teach the positive electrode active material being in contact with a solid electrolyte having a median diameter of 150 nm or less.
Lee et al. teaches positive electrode active material (16, Fig. 1) being in contact with (contact area, [0029]; also see Fig. 1) a solid electrolyte (14, Fig. 1; also see first solid electrolyte particle, [0030]) having a median diameter of 150 nm or less (1 nm to 100 nm, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode taught by 452’ by having the positive electrode active material contacts with the solid electrolyte particles as taught by Lee et al. to increase a contact area between the solid electrolyte particles and an active material and increase the amount of movement of lithium ions, therefore to improve the performance of the secondary battery (see Lee et al. [0029]); and to modify the solid electrolyte taught by 452’ to have the average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 1 nm to 100 nm taught by Lee et al. because a process of preparing solid electrolyte particles having D50 less than 1 nm is difficult and the movement of lithium ions at an interface is not easy when solid electrolyte particles having D50 greater than 100 nm (see Lee et al. [0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US 20120115028 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20160043430 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno et al. teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode active material layer/current collector of first example, [0061]; also see 20, Fig. 1) for a secondary battery (all-solid battery of first example, [0067]; also see 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (current collector of first example, [0061]; also see 11, Fig. 1); and a positive electrode active material layer (first positive electrode active material layer: LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:2, [0061]; also see 12a, Fig. 1),
the positive electrode active material layer (first positive electrode active material layer: LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:2, [0061]; also see 12a, Fig. 1; note: 12a has both 1 and 2, [0027]) comprising a positive electrode active material (LiCoO2, [0061]; also see 1, Fig. 1), and
the positive electrode active material (LiCoO2, [0061]; also see 1, Fig. 1) being in contact with (1 contacts with 2, see Fig. 1; also see “LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 are mixed and pressed”, [0061]) a solid electrolyte (75Li2S-25P2S5, [0061]; also see 2, Fig. 1).
Ueno et al. does not teach a solid electrolyte having a median diameter of 150 nm or less.
Lee et al. teaches a solid electrolyte (14, Fig. 1; also see first solid electrolyte particle, [0030]) having a median diameter of 150 nm or less (1 nm to 100 nm, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte 75Li2S-25P2S5 taught by Ueno et al. to have the average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 1 nm to 100 nm taught by Lee et al. because a process of preparing solid electrolyte particles having D50 less than 1 nm is difficult and the movement of lithium ions at an interface is not easy when solid electrolyte particles having D50 greater than 100 nm (see Lee et al. [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Ueno et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches further comprising an adhesive layer (second positive electrode active material layer: LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:5, Ueno [0061]; also see 12b, Ueno Fig. 1; note: “adhesive” because of laminated body, see Ueno [0061]) formed on at least one of laminated surfaces (surface when subsequently, the first positive electrode active material layer and the second positive electrode active material layer were bonded to each other, Ueno [0061]; also see the surface between 12a and 12b, Ueno Fig. 1) of the positive electrode active material layer,
wherein the adhesive layer (second positive electrode active material layer: LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:5, Ueno [0061]; also see 12b, Ueno Fig. 1) comprises the solid electrolyte (75Li2S-25P2S5 of Ueno modified with Lee) having the median diameter of 150 nm or less (1 nm to 100 nm, Lee [0030]) as a main component (75Li2S-25P2S5 is 62.5 volume%; note: LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:5, Ueno [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Ueno et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches wherein a content of the solid electrolyte (volume% of 75Li2S-25P2S5, Ueno [0061]) having the median diameter of 150 nm or less (1 nm to 100 nm, Lee [0030]) is greater toward (75Li2S-25P2S5 in second positive electrode active material layer (12b) is 62.5 volume%, which is greater than 40 volume% of 75Li2S-25P2S5 in first positive electrode active material layer (12a); note: second positive electrode active material layer (12b): LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:5; first positive electrode active material layer (12a): LiCoO2 and 75Li2S-25P2S5 with volume ratio of 3:2, Ueno [0061]) a laminated surface (surface where 12b and 40 contact, see Ueno Fig. 1; “laminated” see laminated body, Ueno [0061]) where a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer of first example, Ueno [0061]; also see 40, Ueno Fig. 1) is laminated in a thickness direction (direction from 12a to 12b, see Ueno Fig. 1) of the positive electrode (20, Ueno Fig. 1) for a secondary battery (100, Ueno Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Horikawa): US 20200212499 A1, Fig. 1;
(Kuriki): US 20230009782 A1, Fig. 2;
(Kojima): US 20200212479 A1, Fig. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights